9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short "the Tribunal") "Questions in ITA No. 810/Coch of 1992 : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the actual rent received for the assessment year 1983-84 being Rs. 46,441 the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the rent receivable at Rs. 22,680 ?" The factual position, as set out in the statement of the case, is as follows: The assessee is an individual, deriving income from house property. The Assessing Officer fixed the annual value of the property at Rs. 46,441 on the basis of the actual rent received for the assessment year 1983-84, as against Rs. 27,780 claimed by the assessee. The determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble amounting to Rs. 22,680 should be taken for the purpose of assessment instead of Rs. 27,780. The Revenue's stand is that where the assessee's property is let out, the amount actually received has to be taken note of. According to learned counsel for the assessee, the provisions of section 23(1)(a) clearly set out the limits for fixing annual value and even if a higher rent was received than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is let and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable. Obviously, if the amount received or receivable is in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, the amount actually received or receivable shall be the annual value of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manner laid down in the Act", that is, computed for the purpose of chargeability, under the sections, from sections 15 to 59. After amendment in 1975, the above position is applicable. That being the position, the approach and conclusions of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were not justified. Additionally, we find that a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. G. Ramesan [2000] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
